5 GHz is the highest stable 2500K that I've heard about, although generally the people who get there either get sponsored CPUs or have enough money not to care about the risks.
Not buying that OC since you admitted it froze at idle, and you're running it way past spec. Also, your stability claims are kinda vague. Run LinX even just 5 times in succession on all cores and all memory and see if it makes it without bailing. Mine barely makes it with the current specs.
Its fine now.. Before it froze due to (too much of) negative voltage offset..
Hitting 1.5V is a little rough.. But its stable.. and it stays relatively cool
Erm.. No sponsored processor? Its a retail i5-2500k from CompUSA retail store in Fort Lauderdale.. $200 (in store price was lower than web store - bonus for me). I also use the healing power of laughter to cool it.
5 GHz is the highest stable 2500K that I've heard about, although generally the people who get there either get sponsored CPUs or have enough money not to care about the risks.
Guy is user number 832 to your 1k+ and you're welcoming him...
I feel like an AT noob with you guys with my paltry user number 2132...
Its fine now.. Before it froze due to (too much of) negative voltage offset..
Erm.. No sponsored processor? Its a retail i5-2500k from CompUSA retail store in Fort Lauderdale.. $200 (in store price was lower than web store - bonus for me). I also use the healing power of laughter to cool it.
The 2500ks are great OCs but at 5GHZ I begin to wonder about stability also. Some chips are and some aren't stable at such a high as 5 Ghz no matter what settings. As for me you can see my settings on both 2500k rigs below. They both have a 44 multiplier and a fsb of 103. This fsb setting originally came about from using the Asus OCing software on my Asus rig for a moderate OC. I can run Intel Burn test all day long, prime 95 till the "cows come home" OCCP?, AIDA64 stress test and on and on and both rigs are rock solid. I like to game so extended gaming sessions are a breeze.
I choose very good mbs and pushed the cpus but not to the breaking point just to say I reached a certain mark.
I have HT on my laptop.. Not a huge fan.. Rather indifferent to it.. Most of the time it can be annoying to see a single threaded app run using (obviously) one thread.. but knowing that one thread its technically.. using half a core.. if thats even how all that works... Is there only really a benefit when you can't specify the # of jobs/threads for a multithreaded program? When it only goes off the reported # of cpus/threads you have? make -j48 or ffmpeg -threads xyz tends do just fine for me.
and my idle wattage is barely anything. I still idle at 1.6ghz.
What happens when you're running a two-threaded application on a single HT-enabled core, is that the second thread only runs when the first thread stalls the core for whatever reason. HT is basically putting a second front-end on a single core that intelligently kicks-in when the core isn't doing anything. (waiting for requested data, etc)
Waiting for IDC, pm, IntelUser2000, [Insert knowledgeable person here] to verify this.
I believe the threads also share execution resources when there aren't any stalls. Superthreading would flip-flop between threads if one stalled while Hyperthreading would simultaneously execute threads.What happens when you're running a two-threaded application on a single HT-enabled core, is that the second thread only runs when the first thread stalls the core for whatever reason. HT is basically putting a second front-end on a single core that intelligently kicks-in when the core isn't doing anything. (waiting for requested data, etc)
Waiting for IDC, pm, IntelUser2000, [Insert knowledgeable person here] to verify this.
What happens when you're running a two-threaded application on a single HT-enabled core, is that the second thread only runs when the first thread stalls the core for whatever reason. HT is basically putting a second front-end on a single core that intelligently kicks-in when the core isn't doing anything. (waiting for requested data, etc)
Waiting for IDC, pm, IntelUser2000, [Insert knowledgeable person here] to verify this.
One thread is set to "high" and the other thread is set to "low".
Only when the thread with high priority stalls, be it from memory access or some such, and the core utilization would otherwise drop below 100% does the second thread with low priority get processing time.
I can get my 2500K to be 5Ghz stable under both prime and intelburntest but it requires shoving 1.5V into the thing to really keep it stable. Pretty pointless since there's no real world difference between 4.6Ghz and 5Ghz lol.
He made a new account and did the original post. Got mods to merge with his old account which is what shows now.